Advantage Car Finance

[dadofholly]

Who issued the claim against you? If it was Welcome i will be surprised if they do re-issue.

 

Did you arrange the finance yourself or was it arranged via a broker?

 

Have you made a formal CCA request?

 

You mention the insurances - were they cancelled at the outset of the agreement or did you make any payments?

[dadofholly]

Is the £1200 paid to the cash drive uk commission?

 

Did you know that any commission would be paid?

 

Have you got proof that this commission was paid? (If you can prove this point it will help you greatly).

 

When they sent you the SAR paperwork did they include a full statement of account?

 

How much do the extra charges add up to - you will be able to claim these back and reduce the balance..

 

(Would be worth you googling Hurstanger V Wilson)

[dadofholly]

That info that is not your business - actually is your business - as it sounds like a secret and undeclared commission, which is a big no no.

 

If you have evidence of this you are entitled to claim that money back - and it invalidates the agreement. Welcome have recentley lost a case on this issue.

 

See also Hurstanger v Wilson.

[dadofholly]

Agreed that Hurstanger v Wilson remains good law, although how you establish a car dealer was acting as a fiduciary for you remains a mystery.

.

 

The finance was arranged through a broker not a car dealer - thats how a fiduciary duty was owed.

 

I got my commission back from a Broker in almost exact same circumstances.

 

As for the agreement it is clear if a broker was involved, and they were, and the commission was undecalred and secret, and it was, then the OP can use Hurstanger.

 

Not sure WFS have lost a case on this point, but I am aware of a case (and so are you) where it has been referred back to the county court to be reconsidered. I maintain that therefore that case remains ongoing and has not, in the cold light of day, been won.

 

Wrong case - but as you bring it up thats another one. Though as you aware the Judge stated in the hearing prior to the final hearing, and not contested by the sols for the other side, that if a secret commision had been paid then the agreement would be unenforceable.

Edited January 12, 2012 by dadofholly

[dadofholly]

DoH, intesting you say there is case law and it has been to the Court of Appeal and the High Court. I was unaware of this. Please can you post links, or citation numbers, or names of parties so I can go and take a look? Thanks.

 

Harrison v Link Financial

Amex v Brandon (The final appeal judgement was handed down recentley you should be able to find threads to it on this site).

 

The DN must be correct - that is statute.

 

I am unable to show any cases in regards to Moulds arguements as there are none to my knowledge.

[dadofholly]

Amex v Brandon is an interesting case to read. From that case you must have 14 days to rectify the breach. What is not obvious from that case is whether or not a date has to be stated. It would appear sufficient for the creditor to say 14 days from when the dn is received. It is not beyond the wit of creditors to send such important docs by recorded delivery and add the charges to debtors account.

 

Harrison v Black Horse is also an interesting case, worth reading from para 44 to 58.

 

The Amex v Brandon is not Rocket science realy - the CCA clearly states what a creditor must do, and how to lay out a DN - with all the resources they have at their disposal it should not be hard - all they have to do is comply with statute. Sending it by recorded delivery and adding a couple of quid to the account is no big deal.

 

Harrison v BH has been quoted to me in the past as some sort of defence for undeclared commissions - usually by creditors trying to put people off - but as i am forever pointing out - there was no broker inolved in this case - and Hurstanger v Wilson deals with secret commissions to a broker, who owed a fiduciary duty to the borrower. That being the case it i classified as a special category of fraud for which no motive needs proving, and holds both the lender and the broker liable.

[dadofholly]

Cool! Tell us about the other case they lost

 

There are actually two - but both settled prior to a final hearing - and confidentiality agreements are in place, (wonder why). Thats why i was so surprised they whent all the way with yours - but glad they did as it i all out and in the public domain now.

 

They had been trying to get round the Hurstanger case, on which they had lost before, and had frightened a few off i believe. Think they got to confident they could get round it and kept bringing up different cases - but none of them include a broker acting for the consumer in the same way as hurstanger - and the way Welcome operated.

 

One of the individuals who won was Andie303 who can be found on this thread - I provided her with a witness statement and a copy of an underwriting sheet i have showing commission payments to brokers. Not sure where she comes in on the thread but it's over 10,000 posts long

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?109794-Welcome-Finance/page35

[dadofholly]

campari - have you got evidence that Welcome paid commissions to the broker?

 

Were you informed by the broker that they would recieve this commission - and how much they would get?

 

Did the broker inform you that is was Welcome that the loan would be through? and at what stage did you find this out?

 

As it stands you may own nothing.

[dadofholly]

Nothing to do with you They do make me laugh.

 

Did the Broker offer you alternatives or was it just Welcome?

 

Would suggest you Google Hurstanger v Wilson - it could be good reading for you.

[dadofholly]

Don't worry about Sealy - they may throw that and others at you as a red herring - the fact is that in Sealy the borrowers were informed a commission would be paid just not how much it would be.

 

Hurstanger v Wilson deals with 'secret' and 'undeclared' commissions for one - and secondly that in the non status market - that welcome deals in - that the declaration of the amount of commission is necessary to be able to give you an informed choice.

 

The fact is you - and others - were given no alternatives.

 

Hurstanger is relevant - not just to you - but all these deals were a thrid party broker was used by the customer.

[dadofholly]

Well the facts are that Welcome pay an undeclared, secret, commission to the broker - thats all the Court needs to know.

[dadofholly]

Camapari this may be worth a read, it s about multiple agreements - such as the one you have.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?171037-Multiple-agreements-falling-within-section-18-CCA-1974

 

Not sure if it is any help for you - it will depend how your agreement is laid out. But it has been used against Welcome - and i know of one case - due to be heard early Feb - that uses these araguments. But that was from an agreement made in 2004.

[dadofholly]

When we get the info back from your SAR we will have a better idea of what the situation is.

 

You say you cancelled some stuff - what did you cancel - and how long into the agreement .

[dadofholly]

Would need to see it to determine for sure if it is compliant - you can scan and upload it to here if you like - but edit out personal details, agreement numbers and any barcodes.

 

That said it sounds confusing and maybe non compliant.

 

What it should tell you is what you need to do to comply with your DN - for example it should tell you how much you have to pay, and by what date, for you to stop the account being defaulted.

[dadofholly]

Did you ever get the pasword sorted for the information you had been sent?

[dadofholly]

So who is advantage - is it them that arranged the finance?

 

Who is telling you they will take you to court?

[dadofholly]

Ok lets step back a moment - did you arrange the finance yourself or did the garage do it for you?

 

was the loan with welcome finance? or am i geting confused?

[dadofholly]

Then Hurstanger & Wilson comes into play - There was a broker who was acting for you - and he received commission that was secret.

[dadofholly]

Do you have evidence that a payment was made?

[dadofholly]

You can claim the commission back from the broker only.

 

As for who the broker worked for thats simple - they worked for you - if you asked them to find a loan for you - it is to you they owed the fiduciary duty. The fact that they recieved a large commission shows that they were not acting in your interest but in their own - by finding the best commission for them, and keeping it secret from you.

 

Any issues regarding the agreement should be with the finance provider.

[dadofholly]

Advantage are talking nonsense - the fact you did not pay the broker is irrelevant - you sourced the broker to act for you. you will go round in circles - they will not settle unless you go legal.

[dadofholly]

Have you pleaded a faulty DN?

 

On what basis are you defending the claim?

[dadofholly]

inbox now cleared.

[dadofholly]

Had message you had tried to pm me - box cleared.